Social Top minds Joe Rogan and Bo Nickal making waves for their political hot take

Jack V Savage said:
Because you did? I pointed out the propaganda campaign, and you said that I suggested the MSM was part of it. I clarified that I didn't say that, and I'm not seeing your interpretation coming out of non-partisan sources.


I think you're playing games here too. And I'll again note that you seem totally OK with the obvious fake/misleading stuff that Holmes posts. I think you're aiming for more seriousness, but you see that stuff as playing a valuable role. Like Tucker and the Flat Earthers.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't suggest you said the MSM was part of it. I sarcastically quipped in a question form if you thought that, since it's where I got my info. You know full well the distinction. But admitting it means you can't cling to this fallacy that I implied the MSM deemed Joe unfit due to him forgetting that death.

Me not needing to see other clips (be they misleading or not) has nothing to do with OUR discussion. I've never said there's no campaign to make Joe look bad. That's the point- I don't know either way because I haven't been influenced by it. I'm not watching whatever clips you're talking about. I don't need to.

There are no games. Though it seems like you prefer to ignore specifics when it's convenient.
 
mkess101 said:
No, I didn't suggest you said the MSM was part of it. I sarcastically quipped in a question form if you thought that, since it's where I got my info. You know full well the distinction. But admitting it means you can't cling to this fallacy that I implied the MSM deemed Joe unfit due to him forgetting that death.
Click to expand...

I don't see where there's a fallacy. Basic exchange here is me saying that you're influenced by a propaganda campaign; you saying that if so, the MSM is part of it; me saying that the MSM hasn't suggested that there is some big decline; and you denying that you said they did. I think that summary is fair to both sides of that discussion. But, again, I think the deliberately misleading stuff posted by Holmes and alluded to by others makes up a key part of the context of all this. That's not coming from the MSM, except where they report on the virality of the BS, and sometimes debunk it.

mkess101 said:
Me not needing to see other clips (be they misleading or not) has nothing to do with OUR discussion. I've never said there's no campaign to make Joe look bad. That's the point- I don't know either way because I haven't been influenced by it. I'm not watching whatever clips you're talking about. I don't need to.
Click to expand...

The clips are posted and discussed here in the WR, including in this thread, on this page. I don't see how you miss them or how they don't influence your thinking in one way or the other (to me, seeing how much of the case is made by fakery strongly suggests that the case itself is fake; but if you haven't looked for fuller context, you could be influenced the other way).
 
Jack's on a gas lighting rampage again? Color me shocked.

Joe's in tip top shape and as a sharp as ever! Don't let your eyes and ears fool you, folks.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I don't see where there's a fallacy. Basic exchange here is me saying that you're influenced by a propaganda campaign; you saying that if so, the MSM is part of it; me saying that the MSM hasn't suggested that there is some big decline; and you denying that you said they did. I think that summary is fair to both sides of that discussion. But, again, I think the deliberately misleading stuff posted by Holmes and alluded to by others makes up a key part of the context of all this. That's not coming from the MSM, except where they report on the virality of the BS, and sometimes debunk it.



The clips are posted and discussed here in the WR, including in this thread, on this page. I don't see how you miss them or how they don't influence your thinking in one way or the other (to me, seeing how much of the case is made by fakery strongly suggests that the case itself is fake; but if you haven't looked for fuller context, you could be influenced the other way).
Click to expand...

See...your first paragraph, just c'mon. The MSM shows news. Where you fall flat here is in asserting that the only way they could lend ANYTHING to the case that Joe is declining would be to editorialize that they see it. I'm saying no, that's patently false and actually not why they're there. They report, I watch, I decide for myself. See how that works? Of course I deny they'd suggest he's in decline, that's not them reporting news. They run a story and say "here's what happened". I read it. I then make assessments based on that info.
 
mkess101 said:
See...your first paragraph, just c'mon. The MSM shows news. Where you fall flat here is in asserting that the only way they could lend ANYTHING to the case that Joe is declining would be to editorialize that they see it. I'm saying no, that's patently false and actually not why they're there. They report, I watch, I decide for myself. See how that works? Of course I deny they'd suggest he's in decline, that's not them reporting news. They run a story and say "here's what happened". I read it. I then make assessments based on that info.
Click to expand...

If the president were actually incapacitated, that would be the top news story in the country. If his speech is just slower or whatever, yeah.
 
Jack V Savage said:
If the president were actually incapacitated, that would be the top news story in the country. If his speech is just slower or whatever, yeah.
Click to expand...

And this isn't some easy to define, hard and fast line. You're presenting it as if there's zero nuance or subjectivity.

Is Joe completely gone, unable to form a sentence, and drooling into his bowl of pudding? Of course not.

In my view, he's declined fairly quickly to where I don't think he should run again. There's a bit of looking forward, too. I'm not advocating he be removed from office or anything drastic (which I previously stated as well).
 
mkess101 said:
And this isn't some easy to define, hard and fast line. You're presenting it as if there's zero nuance or subjectivity.
Click to expand...

I've never presented it as something lacking nuance, and you have presented me as doing that. It's a spectrum with a line on it. I think he's clearly not past the line, and I wouldn't say the same about Trump.

mkess101 said:
Is Joe completely gone, unable to form a sentence, and drooling into his bowl of pudding? Of course not.

In my view, he's declined fairly quickly to where I don't think he should run again. There's a bit of looking forward, too. I'm not advocating he be removed from office or anything drastic (which I previously stated as well).
Click to expand...

You say of course not, but that's actually a commonly stated view here and in the rightist media. I think the mainstream liberal view--and the correct one--is that he's been a terrific president and there's no reason he can't continue to be one, but there is concern about whether he'll be a good enough campaigner. I think that reflects issues with the media and the shallowness of a lot of commentary more than truly relevant concerns about him, but of course he does have to win the election to do the job.
 
mkess101 said:
And this isn't some easy to define, hard and fast line. You're presenting it as if there's zero nuance or subjectivity.

Is Joe completely gone, unable to form a sentence, and drooling into his bowl of pudding? Of course not.

In my view, he's declined fairly quickly to where I don't think he should run again. There's a bit of looking forward, too. I'm not advocating he be removed from office or anything drastic (which I previously stated as well).
Click to expand...
In a normal world, Trump and Biden would not run. Nobody is in his prime at that age. Nobody.
 
Hog-train said:
I'm assuming so. The media called him far right several times that I recall.
Click to expand...

THey go after Joe more for being a conspiracy theorist which has somehow become a right wing thing even though the entire progressive political platform is based on belief in a giant conspiracy theory that there is some shadowy white male patriarchy secretly pulling the strings of society.
 
koquerelle said:
In a normal world, Trump and Biden would not run. Nobody is in his prime at that age. Nobody.
Click to expand...

I think we should look hard at what makes a successful president. Obama brought a lot of strengths to the table--modern decision-making (using data science more than anyone previously had), great in the head of state role, likeable. But he had some weaknesses related to his lack of experience and pre-existing relationships. I think when you look at the blockade the GOP put on everything he tried to do, people thought of it at the time as partisanship or racism, but there's an element of old Republicans in Congress thinking that this first-term senator is too big for his britches and just not respecting him. Conversely, Biden has good relationships with Congress, and he's done a great job of doing big things quietly enough that Republicans don't feel the need to make them a life-and-death struggle. Even his biggest critics barely talk about any of the major legislation he's gotten past (meaning, they don't criticize it). People criticize Biden for not taking credit for things, and that does hurt him in the polls, but it's helped him on the job.

Looking back further, it seems like the most effective presidents (whether for good or bad) have generally been older (with some exceptions). Think Reagan, Nixon, LBJ (and contrast with Carter, W, JFK). Of course none of been as old as Biden (though people today age better than they used to), and of course there are other factors. But I think all else being equal, we should prefer presidents who have been in politics a long time and who are on the older side.

That's not so much a response on anyone in particular as it is to the general implication that we don't want old presidents.
 
ColemanwastheGOAT said:
THey go after Joe more for being a conspiracy theorist which has somehow become a right wing thing even though the entire progressive political platform is based on belief in a giant conspiracy theory that there is some shadowy white male patriarchy secretly pulling the strings of society.
Click to expand...
Well, of course, that's utter bullshit.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I've never presented it as something lacking nuance, and you have presented me as doing that. It's a spectrum with a line on it. I think he's clearly not past the line, and I wouldn't say the same about Trump.



You say of course not, but that's actually a commonly stated view here and in the rightist media. I think the mainstream liberal view--and the correct one--is that he's been a terrific president and there's no reason he can't continue to be one, but there is concern about whether he'll be a good enough campaigner. I think that reflects issues with the media and the shallowness of a lot of commentary more than truly relevant concerns about him, but of course he does have to win the election to do the job.
Click to expand...

So this is what I mean. My view quite obviously is that he's between where you and the "commonly stated view" of the rightist media is. He's slipping, but not completely gone. No need to be drastic and remove him from office , but I believe he's going downhill enough to where he should voluntarily opt out of running again. So my "of course not" differs quite a bit from the campaign you've tried to assert had influenced me, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
mkess101 said:
So this is what I mean. My view quite obviously is that he's between where you and the "commonly stated view" of the rightist media is. He's slipping, but not completely gone. No need to be drastic and remove him from office , but I believe he's going downhill enough to where he should voluntarily opt out of running again. So my "of course not" differs quite a bit from the campaign you've tried to assert had influenced me, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

What do you understand "influence" to mean?
 
What biden cited was paraphrased and inferred by what trump said.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I think it's remarkable that people can post here so much and still seem to not have the slightest clue about what the "other side" thinks.
Click to expand...
I just watched "don't look up" again then came here and found this. Good lord why would a hero even bother saving this planet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,108
Messages
55,467,908
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top